About this Show

Inside Washington

News/Business. (2011) (CC)

NETWORK
PBS

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco,CA

SOURCE
Comcast

TUNER
Channel 71 (507 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Michele Bachmann 5, Us 5, Washington 4, Rupert Murdoch 4, Obama 3, United States 3, Pelosi 3, David Brooks 3, Romney 2, Perry 2, America 2, Boehner 2, New Hampshire 2, John Boehner 2, Facebook 1, Secondly 1, England 1, U.s. 1, Nina 1, Medicaid 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  PBS    Inside Washington    News/Business.  (2011)  (CC)  

    July 10, 2011
    6:00 - 6:30pm PDT  

6:00pm
>> production assistance for "inside washington" was provided by allbritton communications and "politico," reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. >> nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to, and the parties are still far apart on a wide range of issues. >> this week on "inside washington," still out on the debt ceiling. >> we do not support cuts in benefits of social security and medicare. >> will democrats touch the third rail of american politics? will republicans consider raising taxes? >> we will not raise taxes on the american people. >> mitt romney is running first
6:01pm
in new hampshire, michele bachmann is winning the hearts of iowa's conservative christians. >> i am impressed by her conservative background -- her christian background. >> the president discovers twitter. >> i am the first president to live tweet. tabloidt murdoch's "news of the world" is dead, of shame. >> we a fundamentally preached trust with our readers. captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> for the record, let me say that unemployment rose to 9.2% last month, even though the economy added 18,000 jobs. astill the key on the debt limit. the president and speaker boehner have been talking about a plan to cut $4 trillion in government spending over the next 10-15 years.
6:02pm
how do you do that? how do you increase revenue? loopholes, reduce tax deductions? or republicans dare to do that? will democrats signed onto cuts to medicare or social security? >> democrats, sucked it up. put entitlements on the table, make sure that at the end of the day, these are still programs that serve the public. >> dick durbin, democrat senate wit. sounds so reasonable when you put it on paper, nina. why can they not get it done? >> i don't know why they cannot get done. i do know why. if you look at the polling data, the american public wants no changes in social security, medicare, medicaid. democrats, having desires of winning back the house, they don't want to go there. republicans have a big flank of new members elected on a pledge of no new taxes. nobody is dealing with reality.
6:03pm
anybody on this panel, two of us could make a deal, but they cannot. >> why can they not make a deal, charles? >> you saw it in the clip you showed. nancy pelosi is the classic definition of a reaction. liberal. no changes in programs, entitlements. -- classic definition of a reactionary at liberal. no genocide programs, entitlements. if you all make -- note changes in programs, entitlements. if you don't make changes, he will wreck the economy, and everybody over the age of nine knows that. is that they are not willing to means test -- if they are not willing to means test entitlements, which you think and liberal alike, who always argue in terms of sharing the sacrifice and the rich bearing the burden, nothing will happen. >> colby? >> you just had exhibit number one of why they have not been able to reach a deal, as my friend charles expressed.
6:04pm
if you start out with nancy pelosi and the position of republicans on tax increases, you see why we are at this impasse. i would rather be here than the president put forth a budget that does not address entitlements. i would not think for a second that he would go through the year and not try to do something about it. what he did was allow the republicans to go first. they jumped behind the ryan plan until the medicare reaction came in and they stepped back from the curb anto think about changes. >> evan? >> i actually feel a glimmer of hope. the papers on friday morning, "wall street journal," john boehner puts the chances that 50-50. obama, finally, finally, after all these months of doing
6:05pm
nothing, sided with the $4 trillion solution, the big solution that has tax reform and dealing with entitlements. maybe i am a whistling past the graveyard, but for the first time, i feel a tiny bit of hope they can get this done. >> did we hear a suggestion or hand from speaker boehner this week that they possibly might consider an increase in revenues? >> if you were to means test social security, for example -- not a crazy idea -- that is a tax increase and ended at seven and -- >> it is not a tax increase, it is a reduction of benefits. >> obama, as far as i can tell, has basically so far thrown in the towel. he wants some loopholes closed -- >> i don't think that is -- >> unsystemic types of revenue increase does not get very far. the question then is, where do you got? you have to cut everywhere, i
6:06pm
think, especially entitlements, especially defense, but you also have to have tax increases. >> has obama thrown in the towel? >> that's not true. obama, as i understand it, has presented a range of options. the outside one was $4 trillion. the little group decided to talk through the weekend about getting to the big one, $4 trillion, which would include tax reform, a lowering tax a little bit but getting rid of a lot of loopholes. we're talking big money. and doing something on social security and medicaid. it could all easily collapse, but for the first time, you have the leader of the country and a principal legislators at least looking at the possibility of doing the right thing. >> but the leader of the country has to lead. he has not yet. even though we have had the rumors and leaks that he is prepared to look at and to discuss, that is language he has used for two -- "i am happy to
6:07pm
discuss --" is that the discussion time. it is crunch time. why have we not heard one proposal from the president? what are you going to do on medicare? >> it is such a certain argument we are having here brought some of us, a few of us, one of us maybe -- [laughter] has an idea that i-he would come to this, -- the idea that he would come to this, "come into my parlor, said the spider to fly." the republicans had their heads handed to them politically -- i am not saying they are substantively wrong -- they tidies debt reductions -- to the reductions -- tied it these debt reductions to the debt limit. i don't see it as it did during on the sidelines at all -- as
6:08pm
dit hering on the sidelines at all. it is a strategy he is pursuing. >> one example of a measure -- for example, medicare eligible late starts at 65. social security is hired. it was indexed in the greenspan comments of the early 1980 and is now in the mid-60's. why are they different? it it makes no sense at all. a serious proposal is to sync the ages and index them to longevity. if the president will propose that, that is serious. >> more on the politics of the debt limit. >> all the deficit spending and national debt are a burden on the american people and they create uncertainty for the american people, and the date create uncertainty for small business people. -- and they at create uncertainty for small business people. dealing with short-term debt problems and long-term debt problems are critically important. the president asked us earlier
6:09pm
this year to increase the debt limit for our country with no changes in spending and no changes in terms of how we spend the american people's money. i made clear that we would not increase the debt limit without real cuts in spending and real changes to the way we spend the american people's money. >> as my republican colleagues defend tax breaks for special interests and the wealthiest 1% of americans, we need to think once again about what kind of political party we want to be asked whether they want to become a party that david brooks, the conservative, described, a party that will not compromise the matter how sweet the deal for the site might be and how great consequences for our nation. >> hariri is talking about conservative "new york times - -- have we read it is talking about conservative "new york times" columnist david brooks,
6:10pm
wrote that the republican party is no longer a normal party. its members, he says, don't accept the logic of compromise. >> forgive me, i have to correct your copy again. he is a great calmness, but he's not conservative -- great columnist, but he's not conservative. he is moderate. >> moderate conservative. >> no, he is moderate, open to all views. what you are saying, if you hear eric cantor john boehner, we are ready for tax reform, which was done in the mid-1980's. you cut out the loopholes and you use the money to cut rates. you get the fairness. rich don't have advantages by having the lobbyists create loopholes and exploit them. you stimulate economic growth because the loopholes and in and of themselves is starting
6:11pm
economically and the low rates encourage economic activity. that is what republicans have been asking for, not to eliminate a loophole here and there, which, in the end, but not absolutely nothing. >> the validity of the public debt of the united states will not be questioned, section 4, a man in 14 of the u.s. constitution. what it they ever invoke that? >> i doubt it, but it is a very good bargaining chip. if the president invokes that, he could make the argument that under the 14th amendment, he does not need congress to raise the debt limit bid of course, it would go to court and drag out. it is not going to happen, but it is a bargaining chip. >> the treasury secretary it brought it up. >> it is not a bargaining chip at all. it is a death warrant if he does something like that. how do you go against decades, decades of legislation where year after year the debt limit
6:12pm
has been raised by congress and the president requested it, whether it is a democratic congress, republican congress, democratic president, republican president. ronald reagan himself -- you asked about the politics of the limits -- when he was confronted with the issue, he said that the consequences would be impossible to predict and contemplate any would be a terrible thing to do. that is what this group of republicans, unlike the past republicans, have done. this is what brooks is saying -- this is kind of a different bunch. >> every generation, these conservatives are lousy -- >> we want to sit on the show and talk about this awful partisanship, and i burned a lot
6:13pm
of trees during this. but we are actively at a historic moment here, folks. >> terrifying moment. >> we could default, which is really terrifying. are we act like at a real deal that everybody is pretty clear on -- or we actually could have a real deal that everybody is pretty clear on. we could be at the moment with the president of the united states is saying that is what he wants to do. >> do you agree with david brooks that this group of republicans have no moral theory or were the of the name? >> the extremes don't, but john boehner actually, who often touts the views of the nuts he leads -- [laughter] --a responsible bguy >> can i get a word in here? >> and then pull it off. "i cannot control them, they are
6:14pm
crazy, they are crazy," it is up valuable bargaining chip for him. >> i like being on a show where ad hominems cannot use. liberals are always thought about why the's conservatives. everybody today worships ronald reagan. i lived in the ronald reagan era. liberals called him an amiable dunce asset to -- and a threat to civilization. a sickly, on the question of the 14th amendment, the -- secondly, on the question of the 14th amendment, it would end up under the jurisdiction of john roberts. >> we've been talking about this stuff or 20 years, the need to fix entitlements. everybody says you have to do something, nobody does anything, and here we are. >> i think this is the most historic weekend of the obama presidency by far. the president of the united states has the chance to actually pull off the big deal
6:15pm
that is going to secure our economic future. 8 he felt added, there are really dire consequences. -- if he fails added, there are really dire consequences. obama actually has a chance to be the leader that he wants to be. i think it will get him reelected if he does it, even out of it is squawking and complaining not go absolute, of t -- this is his absolutet of t. >> doing something about social security -- >> that is what true leadership is, being able to persuade his base that he is doing something for them. he is preserving democracy, believe me. if we don't get control of this debt thing, we are on the road to becoming greece. >> can i make a few points on that? number one, it did not have to be a moment, it did not have to be a crash or crisis. obama has been in office 2.5 years. everybody has talked about this
6:16pm
at least 2.5 years. he added that commission, he ignored it. why? all of a sudden it is now crisis. secondly, he stepped aside and the republicans offered a plan on medicare. you can argue 8 is good or not, but it was serious and risky and courageous. what happened? obama and policy -- and pelosi and reid -- pelosi said it would kill the elderly. putting a stake in their heart. all of a sudden you are going to rise above and offer your own? i would like to see it. it. >> i have, obviously, different perspective on this. [laughter] 20 years of talking about and getting no action at all, and all of a sudden, two years into his presidency, three years into his presidency, we have real movement on this issue but. look at where we are now, are further along than we ever been --
6:17pm
>> $4.50 trillion extra added that is where we are now. >> all, don't go there. if we go there, we have to go to the other part of financing two wars by borrowing, tax cuts for the rich without paying for them. we don't want to go there. >> no one has ever, near 10% of gdp deficit, never, anybody. >> charles, you have a straight face saying that. how can you do that? the bush tax cuts and on financed war is, look what that it u. -- it did to us. >> everybody is to blame it. the culture as span beyond its means. >> starting with voters, who have unrealistic expectations they can have everything for nothing. the only ray of hope is that
6:18pm
people cannot yammer their heads off after the meeting on friday and that the staff will be meeting all weekend long and there is another meeting on principals. the minute people talk into microphones and make ultimatums, everything is very bad. if they shot up, that is at least a ray of hope. >> they are going at court constituencies with this. republicans are going to have to make difficult calls because of their constituents, so will democrats. if you are going to do something with entitlement programs, first of all, you are taking away the democrats' issue a few step up to medicare, too. republicans are upset that this issue might be taken away by president obama. but that is what is going to take. i think, charles, you ought to be applauding this. >> all right, i think we are going to be talking about this again.
6:19pm
>> we did something unusual three years ago as a nation. we elected a person, very nice fellow, who we did not know very well it did not have a track record we could look at. he had never run anything before, haven't really had a leadership role before, and yet he was an eloquent spokesperson for bringing america together. there were some people in the last campaign who said, i wonder what will happen if we act as a present someone who does not have any experience? -- if we elect a president someone who does not have any experience? now we know. >> we know from the founding documents of this nation, the declaration of independence, it is written that we have been in doubt by our creator inalienable rights -- with certain inalienable rights. our founders were not afraid to talk about the crater, that the fed to articulate the fact that we were created in the image and
6:20pm
likeness of a holy god, and they said we have been given rights from god. this is what is profound about america. >> that is mitt romney campaign against the president in new hampshire, leading in the polls, by the way, and michele bachmann, campaigning in iowa, speaking at a church about our inalienable rights as americans having been endowed by god. it makes sense politically for both of them, doesn't it? >> it does, and everybody is falling a predictable course, but everybody is waiting for the governor of texas to get in. >> or not. >> and that all of a sudden to the rest upside down. -- turned the race upside down. >> he raised $20 million but he did not meet expectations. what does that say about romney's real fundraising
6:21pm
ability? the other thing that has happened, i can to criticism that has, michele bachmann -- aipac candid criticism that has come michele bachmann's -- way because of a -- a backhanded criticism that has come michele bachmann's way because of preferences to god. >> she quoted the declaration of independence, thomas jefferson. >> how she came to her faith and the experiences she has said, not critical of the president. i think it was appropriate under the circumstances where she was to talk about what she talked about. >> also, a large percentage of the people she wants to reach in this caucasus are like-minded. >> mike huckabee did very well with that same constituency. >> speaking of gov. perry, i think the only thing holding him
6:22pm
that is good he raise the money and put the infrastructure in place at this date? there is an undercurrent of bad blood between the perry forces and the forces of george w. bush. since this is "inside washington" we should not fail to mention that. >> in terms of the money, the president could rise up to $60 million. i wonder if at some point the american people get fed up? >> i think a certain point, diminishing returns. it will be a referendum on obama, unless a nut is nominated on the republican side -- >> of which there are many to choose from. >> that was said ironically -- to i have to explain the jokes here? if the debt reduction talks succeed, it will deideologize
6:23pm
the election. obama will can see on entitlements, republicans will can see on -- will concede on entitlements, republicans will on taxes. it will be about the state economy and stewardship, and as to which it is romney's -- and a storage shed is romney's strong point. >> the president is on twitter this week, on youtube and facebook, has got to energize the use of votes -- youth vote. is it going to be enough? >> he still has to hold onto his base, and his base is very unhappy at this point when they hear talk about making changes at the entitlement programs, which are necessary. at they don't want to hear that. there is a serious grumbling taking place. rupert murdoch's "news
6:24pm
of the world" at tabloid is dead. >> they would go and do anything. >> even breaking the law? >> absolutely. >> that is a former editor and reporter of "news of the world," now defunct because rupert murdoch's company has killed it because they were packing into voice-mail -- hacking into voice-mails over the years, the families of victims of terrorism. even by british tabloids -- >> when you say that, you are moving the corporate rupert murdoch and the ascent was made by "news of the world, made a lot of money by it appealing to siliceous instance and naked girls and murders. he became a huge world actor. now it is coming to haunt him. he is an extraordinary operator, so he will get away from this, but closing the newspaper?
6:25pm
>> also, through the media conglomerate, owns the fox tv, "the wall street journal" -- >> which is why this is on page one of "the new york times." >> and "the washington post." murdoch is just about to buy complete control of the big network, television network, and that is in doubt now. what you see is that in england this is happening, and in italy, silvio berlusconi owns a huge portion of the media. fox on television did not have anything about this on its website. you have to worry about this at democracy. >> the question is not the size of the ownership, is the breakdown in ethics. they went far beyond the pale. it ought to be shut down.
6:26pm
he will come back with something else. >> not immoral, amoral. >> it is indefensible. it started out with tapping into celebrities and the royals and everybody was atwitter about the, but when it became about the dead girl, and soldiers, as you said, it became utterly beyond the pale. robert m -- rupert murdoch is, if nothing else, decisive. he did exactly the right thing. >> last word. see you next week.
6:27pm
6:28pm
6:29pm